Re: Call for Review: WCAG Techniques for Specific Technologies wording

Fine for me, too.

Vicki Menezes Miller


On Tue, Jun 3, 2014 at 8:19 PM, Schantz, Paul A <paul.schantz@csun.edu>
wrote:

>  EOWG,
>
>  No concerns at all, this language looks good to me.
>
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------
> Paul Schantz
> Director, Web and Technology Services
> Division of Student Affairs
> California State University, Northridge
> phone: 818.677.3839
> e-mail: pschantz@csun.edu
> twitter: @paulschantz
> www.linkedin.com/in/paulschantz
>
> www.csun.edu/sait
> System notifications:  @CSUN_SAIT
>
> Input | Intellection | Responsibility | Connectedness | Individualization
> | Accessibility
>
> Begin forwarded message:
>
>  *Resent-From: * <paul.schantz@csun.edu>, <w3c-wai-eo@w3.org>
>  *From: *Shawn Henry <shawn@w3.org>
>  *Subject: * *Call for Review: WCAG Techniques for Specific Technologies
> wording*
>  *Date: *June 2, 2014 at 3:51:47 PM PDT
>  *To: *"EOWG (E-mail)" <w3c-wai-eo@w3.org>
>
> EOWG,
>
> In last Friday's EOWG teleconference, we refined wording with folks from
> the WCAG WG. Here is your chance to express any concerns. If you have any
> comments, *please reply asap*, by Monday 9 June at the latest.
>
> Proposed wording:
> Publication of techniques for a specific technology does not imply that
> the technology can be used in all situations to create content that meets
> WCAG 2.0 success criteria and conformance requirements. Developers need to
> be aware of the limitations of specific technologies and provide content in
> a way that is accessible to people with disabilities.
>
> (one correction from the wording agreed upon in the teleconference:
> "conformance criteria" corrected to "conformance requirements")
>
> Background on the issue with new summary and links: <
> https://www.w3.org/WAI/EO/wiki/WCAG_Techniques_for_Specific_Technologies_-_Archived
> >
> Teleconference minutes: <http://www.w3.org/2014/05/30-eo-minutes>
>
> We'll address the "location" of where to include this text separately.
>
> Thanks,
> ~Shawn
>
>
>
>